About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
of the sitting president or the public was not over enchanted with the war in iraq when george w. bush ran for reelection. against john kerry, but voters by a small margin seen to believed bush would be the better leader. it cannot be said that the vote reflected a favorable referendum on george w. bush's first term. the importance of the communication skills of a candidate cannot be discounted as a factor, however. but all of this misses a different evaluation that merits being taken into account in judging between an income, barack obama, and his challenger, mitt romney. that is the chinks of the second term on too many presidents. 27 of 19 presidents -- only seven of 19 presidents elected to a second term avoid having a troubled or failed second term. that would give the country about a 30% chance of obama and the nation experiencing an improved security of economic climate. after four years if obama is reelected. i do not suggest that the gamble should not be taken. simply, that history into playing with politics might give us pause. so what does history predicted about a second term f
of a sitting president. the public was not over enchanted with the war in iraq when george w. bush ran for reelection. against john kerry, but voted by a small margin seem to believe bush should be the better theater cannot be with the vote reflected a favorable referendum on george w. bush's first term. the importance of the communication of a candidate cannot be discounted as a factor however. but all of this misses a different valuation of mayors being taken into account in judging between incumbent or obama and his challenger, and that rummy. that is the of the second term on so many presidents. only seven of 19 presidents elected to a second term avoided having a troubled or failed second term. i would give the country about a 30% chance of obama and the nation next. cnn improved security and economic climate. after four years if obama is reelected. i do not suggest the campbell should not be taken, simply that history playing with politics might give us pause. so what does history project about a second term for barack obama? where he reelect it was so few president having succes
-- [inaudible] [laughter] we both use a little german. when george w. bush appointed an old family retainer i did a poem that rhymed with -- [inaudible] [laughter] and we both write about animals sometimes. he famously wrote a lot of things about cats. my daughter said once at the dinner table when somebody brought up cats, daddy hates cats. and i said daddy does not hate cat. that would be prejudiced, and you girls have been brought up to not have prejudice daddy has never met a cat he likes. [laughter] and i've written about corp. kor g.i.s. i wrote in a column once that corp. the dogs look like a breed of dogs that look like they have been assembled from oh parts of dogs. not the part that the breeds were sorry about giving up. [laughter] i'll admit there's never been a broadway show called cor g.i. i'm a second generation poet. my father was a grocer for most of his working life, but he had a restaurant for a few years, and he took advantage of that to write a menu at lunch every day. mostly about pie. not pi pie. pie. i had a lot of trouble with pi when i was in high school. math was my
of the george w. bush administration. this brings me to another critically important part of our book, which is how the islamic republic of iran has become the biggest that issue of american mistakes and are ongoing decline in the middle east. in our book, we lay out how by pursuing a foreign policy and building a domestic political order that attracts publics, the islamic republic of iran has been able to take an impeach of american mistakes, to improve its own position dramatically. the key to the islamic republic successes has been that beyond the shift in the distribution of power, who has power in the middle east is a detailed earlier, something even more important is happening and that is the middle east will power itself is changing. it is now increasingly less defined by hard military capabilities for the united states has a clear advantage in the islamic republic of iran is relatively positioned and more defined in terms of the balance of influence are the islamic republic of iran has real unique advantages. as we explained in our book, the islamic republic is encouraging and taken
not just idiosyncratic, ideologically-generated products of the george w. bush administration. as we describe in our book, these stem from a much deeper source that cuts across both democratic and republican administrations, and it's something we describe as the united states, essentially, giving in to a post-cold war temptation to act as an imperial power in the middle east. and it is this imperial turn in america's middle east policies pursued with very little regard for realities on the ground in the middle east that have proven not just quixotic, but deeply damaging to american interests. as a candidate back in twaipt, now-president obama then seemed to really understand this. he talked about it courageously during the campaign. he pledged to not just withdraw american troops from iraq, but to change what he called the american mindset that had gotten us into the strategic mistake of invading iraq in the first place. he pledged to really change america's middle east policies. but instead the obama administration has pursued the same sorts of policies as its predecessors, the same
baker and george h.w. bush nsx 70 hageman of the world's nations. this subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and they've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and oliver sudden, you have people who don't have -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really can't afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. when you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and i'll get a haircut or not solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to the whole. yet the will to support that going forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, it's hard to get public support for that. it's hard to get congressional sup
president, and george w. bush was a guy who thought deeply about imuation reform, poverty and trying to craft a middle class agenda for the gop. george w. bush is a figure that many republicans have been running away from. so tell me, do you think republicans were too quick to abandon george w. bush? >> i'm sorry, what? i was tweeting. i'm sorry. [laughter] um, well, yes and no. i think, obviously, politically republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was politic thing to do. numbers don't lie. he became very unpopular. parties tend not to embrace figures and politicians who become unpopular. my view is that a lot of the distress over bush's domestic agenda from which republicans fled beginning really in 2005 had, it was a, it was an ancillary result of the failure to secure victory in iraq early and to have a favorable reckoning -- >> so iraq sank what might have been a successful domestic policy agenda? >> right. well, what i mean is that i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush on what would be efficacious for the country when it lost fa
of the former press secretary of president george w. bush? did you ever get to interviewing that author, the father of scott mcclellan? >> i didn't interview him. all i can say about lyndon johnson's role in the assassination is in all my years of working on lyndon johnson's papers and going for his diaries like everything else, all the people close to him, i never found the slightest hint that he had anything to do with the assassination. yes, sir? >> lbj is well remembered as someone who was very adept at gaining the senate and working with congress as president, difficult things done. how well did he do getting things done with a polarized environment? >> that is a terrific question. it is hard to answer, if part of the answer is the following, when lyndon johnson became majority leader of the senate in 1955 the senate was and has been for decades, let's put it that way, same mess, hard to believe, the same dysfunctional mess and it is today. bills couldn't get past. the power in front of the president wasn't a party, republicans against democrats, half of the democrats in the senate
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
by george w. bush. at the beginning of a new congress a majority of the senators can change the rules. here's the letter in part. some have sought to elevate the debate to constitutional dimensions by suggesting that it is institutionally improper for a new senate to alter the senate's rules by skwroet srort because the internal procedures adopted by prior senates have required a two-third majority to allow a vote on a motion to alter the rules. with respect, such a concern confuses the power to change the senate rules during a session with the unquestioned constitutional power of each incoming senate to fix its own rules unencumbered by the decisions of past senates. the standing two-thirds requirement for altering the senate's rules is a sensible effort at preventing changes to the rules in the midst of the game. it cannot, however, prevent the senate at the beginning of a new game from adopting rules deemed necessary to permit the just, efficient and orderly operations of the 113th senate. we agree -- again, this is the letter from charles freed, solicitor general under president; michae
. we saw the global presence put together by jim baker and george h.w. bush and the success of that in the engagement of the world's nations. but subsequent to that, um, we have seen a completely different scene, and that is what i would describe as the two alarmers or the three alarmers. and we've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and all of a sudden you have people who don't have that previous, a lot of people in congress who don't have that previous reference or who basically have come to the conclusion the world has changed, and we really can't afford nor do we have the public support for global engagement. and so when you go back home and talk to people back home, they say, you know, why do we give so much foreign awed when it literally -- aid when it literally is like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of walking and say, well, i'm going to go get a haircut, and that'll solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and the amount of foreign presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant co
. that is a really good question. i don't know -- the relationship between america and george w. bush was very solid. my mind drifted. your question was the israelis. i am sorry. time for a refill on my coffee. many, many discussions with the germans relative to their position, relative to our position and the israeli issue. public sentiment in germany as a whole is strongly for a reconciliation for the palestinians, yeah overlying all of that is the residue of the holocaust. i think i can say this. i have a private discussion with the foreign minister on this topic and it had to do with iran and the nuclear threat to israel and the position germany was taking relative to that. i was questioning where they might be should there be a real threat or attack on israel. he said you know that that is not what the public would want us to do but given the holocaust we have no choice but to be there in support of israel. we cannot stand by and let another holocaust take place. so those decades of remorse and guilt over the holocaust dictates policy relative to support for israel even though the public now de
. in all fairness, president george w. bush was outspoken in his support for immigration reform from the beginning. so i think we have clear presidential support. we have conversation last night with the president and featured he cheered us on anything with a sense of urgency. let's not let this all fall behind. >> he made it very clear that the major priority would be to move this forward in time is of the essence. well, we are moving forward and time is of the essence. >> [inaudible question] >> those details will involve a lot from these numbers it's the reason why i signed onto this and a very straightforward principle. it says we have to modernize our legal immigration system and we have to have a real enforcement mechanism to make sure that we are not here again in the future and we have to deal a way that is responsible and humane. we need to meet certain benchmarks and have access to the regular opportunity anyone else in the world would have. once you have that, you are three or five years away from becoming a fair process. each store legacy is a nation of immigrants. >> [in
more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on dhaka marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines and frankly whether was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath as far as i am concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure if it never happens again savitt in the future of our people are protected. that is what i want to get out of all of this. so we commend you for accepting of the recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before they submit its conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings in its proposal. the vast majority for this proposal would come through funds previously appropriated for the lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department to transfer authority that it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember the security isn't a one off endeavor. indy 500 it's a long-term responsibility and investment and in tha
presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h.w. bush made a budget agreement for which he -- may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans, but it also helped balance the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990's when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is at the white house a feeling, two things that i would like to disabuse the white house of. the first is that the budget problem isn't a real problem. i can't believe that people at the white house think that. i mean, everybody knows it is. senator mcconnell gave a very good explanation of what was going -- what was going on there, but let me say it this way -- in 2025, according to the congressional budget office, every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt, and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways, every other thing, the investments that we need to make in research to grow this c
there have been many times in our history when presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h. w. bush made a budget agreement for which he may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans. but it also help don't the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990s when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is that the white house is feeling, two things. the first is that the budget problem is not a real problem and i can't believe people at the white house think that. everybody knows it is. mcconnell -- senator mcconnell gave a good explanation of what was going on there but let me say this way. in 2025 according to the congressional budget office every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare and dedicated social security and interest on the debt and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways and every other thing the investments we need to make in research to grow this country. it all goes for medicare and me
supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the
benefit cuts. gale walenski, the former c.m.s. administrator under george h.w. bush, said in 2011, "if we don't redesign what we're doing, we can't just cut unit reimbursement and somehow think we're getting a better system." now, a lot of my colleagues give great credence to the private sector. in the private sector, one of the leaders in health care is george halvorson who recently stepped down as chairman and c.e.o. of kaiser permanente, one of the biggest and best health care companies in the country. here's what he said -- "there are people right now who want to cut benefits and ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in this country and that's wrong. it's so wrong, it's almost criminal. it's an inept way of thinking about health care." so from republican administrators to private sector leaders, the message is the same -- we have to solve this as a system problem. let me give a couple of examples of how you might want to go about doing this. as one example of the significant savings to be found in our health care system, a "washington post" columnist recently wrote
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18